Pinto II: Judge Mudrick conducts simulated process in Rabbi Pinto's corruption trial...The
Rabbi Pinto affair is one of the worst corruption scandals of recent
years in Israel. Conduct of the criminal prosecution in the case is not
credible, and is likely intended to cover up the scope of corruption in
top echelons of the Israel Police and the justice system. Now, Judge
Mudrick denies access to the court records in the file - “a fundamental
principle in a democractic regime”, and “a constitutional,
super-statutory right” - by issuing simulated decision records and
conducting simulated process on Requests to Inspect the court file.
Conduct of the judges in this file and others show that the
“Constitutional Revolution”, cooked up by former Presiding Justice
Aharon Barak, was never meant to impose any restraints on the power or
corruption of the judiciary, only to empower them vis a vis other
branches of goernment.

Figure:
Rabbi Pinto and senior police officers Arbiv and Bracha - main figures
in the scandal. Pinto's attorneys warned that Pinto's prosecution would
cause embarrassment to the justice system... Judge Oded Mudrick of the
Tel-Aviv District Court - both the purported conviction, and the
purported sentencing records fails to be entered in Net-HaMishpat (IT
system of the Court), a widely reported sentencing hearing "did not take
place", and the reading of the sentence was in a hearing that both took
place and did not take place...____

OccupyTLV,
May 18 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, has filed today a request (copied in full
below) for a duly made decision by Judge Oded Mudrick of the Tel-Aviv
District Court on Dr Zernik's requests to inspect the court's records in
Rabbi Pinto's criminal prosecution. [1] The request was filed after
Judge Mudrick issued a series of records of purported decisions, which
were likely to be found by international observers as simulated court
records. [2]

The
issuance of simulated court records is a well-recognized fraud in the
courts worldwide, and in many nations acts are in place criminalizing
such conduct.

The
Rabbi Pinto affair is one of the worst corruption scandals in Israel's
history. The criminal prosecution in this case progressed rapidly, but
most of the records in the case have never been published. [3]

The
request to inspect the court records in the Rabbi Pinto affair is part
of a series of requests to inspect court files, which have been filed as
part of an academic study, intended to document the level of compliance
of the Israeli courts with the right to inspect court files, in the
wake of a revolution in administration of the courts over the past
decade.

Public
access to court records, particularly in a criminal prosecution is a
fundamental Human Right. In a 2009 Judgment in petition by the
Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the right to inspect court
records was also declared by then Presiding Justice Dorit Beinisch of
the Israeli Supreme Court “a fundamental principle in a democratic
regime”, and “a constitutional, super-statutory right”.

However,
the survey so far documents that the Israeli courts today
systematically deny public access to court records. Moreover, such
denial of access is often done out of compliance with Israeli law.

The
key problem in many of the cases, where public access to court records
has been denied, is in the conduct of simulated legal process by judges,
relative to requests to inspect the court files themselves.

The
request for a duly made decision, filed today with Judge Mudrick of the
Tel-Aviv District Court , followed the receipt yesterday by fax, of a
“Decision” record, the content of which is not credible, which was
unsigned, unauthenticated, and which was transmitted from an
unidentified fax machine. Moreover, this “Decision” record fails to
appear in the “Decisions Docket” in the public access system of the
Court in this case, like all other “Decisions” by Judge Oded Mudrick,
pertaining to the repeat requests to inspect the Pinto court file.

The
general situation, as it appears following the latest series of
requests to inspect court files in various Israeli courts, is that
Israeli judges have no intention of complying with the “constitutional”
right (there is no Constitution in the State of Israel) to inspect court
records, or for that matter with the “Constitutional Revolution”
launched by Supreme Court Presiding Justice Aharon Barak (a judge of
dubious international reputation himself) a couple of decades ago.

The
question must be raised of course, why Israeli judge find it necessary
to deny public access to court records. The most plausible answer, based
on centuries-long experience is that public access to court records is
the most effective way to ensure transparency of the judicial process
and integrity of the courts.

In
addition, conduct of the Israeli judges, relative to the recent series
of requests to inspect court records documents again the underlying
fraud in development, implementation and operation of Net-HaMishpat –
the courts' new IT system.

Israeli
judges have created conditions, where the public cannot ascertain what a
person was indicted on, what a person was convicted of, what a person's
sentence is, and that a person is held in prison pursuant to a lawfully
made arrest warrant. Such conditions are typical of tribunals in a
military dictatorship, but not in courts of a civil society.

Given
the intense public interest in the Pinto scandal, it is difficult to
believe that experienced legal reporters and Israeli law professors
failed to notice the perverted court records in this case. However,
Israeli media continue to report on the case as a valid prosecution,
conducted pursuant to the law of the State of Israel.____

Request for a duly made decision on Request to Inspect in instant court file

Following is a brief chronology of my requests to inspect instant court file to this date:

a. On April 29, 2015, I filed my original Request to Inspect (#25) in instant court file. [1]

b.
On April 30, 2015, Judge Mudrick issued a record, titled "Decision", of
the "post-it decision" type, which is unsigned and unauthenticated,
which was not registered in the "Decisions Docket" in the public access
system in Net-HaMishpat, and which was not duly served. [2] The April 30, 2015 record says:

Trial is not over yet.

Exercising the right to inspect the court file at this stage would impose a serious burden on judicial work.

Since the request is justified by a research purpose, I don't see any room to grant it at this stage.

Once trial is over, it should be possible to file such request again.

The April 30, 2015 "Decision" is by now moot, since trial is by now over.

c. On May 10, 2015, I filed a Repeat Request (#27) to Inspect in instant court file. [3]

d.
On May 12, 2015, Judge Mudrick issued a record, titled "Decision", of
the "post-it decision" type, which is unsigned and unauthenticated,
which was not registered in the "Decisions Docket" in the public access
system in Net-HaMishpat, and which was not served on the Requester at
all. [4] The May 12, 2015 record says:

The Requester can inspect all court records, which are open to the public at large.

e.
On May 14, 2015, during a visit to the Office of the Clerk, I received
from Judge Mudrick's administrative assistant, Ms Sari Cohen, copies of
four (4) records from instant court file: [5]

(1) Indictment, dated September 19, 2014 (which fails to bear a stamp "Filed", or "Received") - which is not among the publicly accessible records in Net-HaMishpat;

(2) Decision, dated April 14, 2015 – which is not among the publicly accessible records in Net-HaMishpat;

(3) Verdict, dated May 12, 2015 – which is now among the publicly accessible records in Net-HaMishpat, and

(4) Decision, dated May 12, 2015 – which is not among the publicly accessible records in Net-HaMishpat.

The
legal foundation for providing me the copies of the specific records,
and the legal foundation for denying my access to other records remains
entirely unclear. It appears that providing access to the records,
listed above, was arbitrary and capricious.

f.
On May 17, 2015, I received by fax records titled "Secretarial Notice"
and "Decision", dated May 14, 2015. In contrast with any other fax
transmission I have ever received from any court, the fax transmission
in this case was from an unidentified machine, and it failed to bear the
transmission date and time header stamp. (Exhibit A)

g.
The May 14, 2015 "Secretarial Notice" is signed by Judge Mudrick's
administrative assistant, Ms Sari Cohen. In it, she is misleadingly
represented as "Clerk of Court", and she seeks Judge Mudirck's
clarifications regarding inspection of the court file. [6] The May 14, 2015 "Secretarial Notice" ends with the following:

Does
your Honor mean that the ability is given to inspect the box in the
Office of the Clerk, used for Office of the Clerk's work, or to
Net-HaMishpat system, where the public at large can view court files
that are open. [sic - jz]

h.
On top of the "Secretarial Notice", a digital record was superimposed,
titled "Decision" by Judge Mudrick, dated May 14, 2015, which is of the
"post-it decision" type, unsigned, unauthenticated, and which was not
registered in the "Decisions Docket" in the public access system in
Net-HaMishpat. [6] The May 14, 2015 "Decision" record says:

The Requester can inspect any record that is publicly accessible.

I
do not make it possible to inspect that record boxes, which are located
in the Office of the Clerk or in the Archive. Among them are sealed
records, and it is not the job of the Office of the Clerk to sort the
records for the Requester.

The judicial content of Judge Mudrick's the May 14, 2015 "Decision" record must raise concerns, for the following reasons:

a.
The language of the record is not credible, and is not valid judicial
language. The Request to Inspect is not meant to ascertain what I "can"
or cannot do, and also not what is "possible". The Request to Inspect
asks that Judge Mudrick make a judicial determination, pursuant to the
law of the State of Israel, whether I am permitted to inspect all
records in instant court file, whose publication is not prohibited by
law.

Every person is permitted to inspect the decisions which are prohibited for publication by law.

c. Regarding the right to inspect by a person, who is not a party to a case, the Regulations of the Courts – Inspection of Court Files (2003), Regulation 4(a) says:

Every
person is permitted to request the court to inspect a court file
(hereinafter – Request to Inspect), unless inspection of the court file
is prohibited by law.

d.
Judge Mudrick's May 14, 2015 "Decision" record does not provide any
lawful reason for denying the right to inspect instant court file:

(1)
In case there are any lawfully sealed records in instant court file,
such matter should have been duly administered. Therefore, there
shouldn't be any need for the Office of the Clerk 'to sort the records
for the Requester'. It is not the authority of the Office of the Clerk
to decide, which records are sealed and which are not.

(2)
Denial of public access to court records, by failing to register them
in the "Decisions Docket" in the public access system, and the
maintenance of double books (see 3, below) do not constitute 'lawful
publication prohibition.'

The registration of the records in instant court file must raise serious concerns, for the following reasons:

a.
The "General Details" tab in the public access system in Net-HaMishpat
indicates under "Sealing" - "Open to the Public", i.e., instant court
file is not sealed at all. (Exhibit B)

b.
With it, obviously Judge Mudrick maintains double books in instant
court file: The "Decisions Docket" in the public access system fails,
for example, to show any of the records, which are "post-it decisions",
issued in conjunction with my Requests to Inspect in instant court file.
(Exhibit C) And the "Judgments Docket" fails to show the Verdict, which according to media was rendered on April 14, 2015. (Exhibit D)

The
May 14, 2015 records, which were received by fax, as outlined above,
and overall Judge Mudrick's conduct, outlined herein, raise further
serious concerns, for the following reasons:

a.
The conduct of Simulated Legal Process is a well-recognized phenomenon
in courts worldwide, but is ignored in Israeli law. For clarification of
the term, as used here, Article § 32.48 of the Texas Criminal Code is
quoted below:

§ 32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to

another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:

(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or

(2) cause another to:

(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or

(B)
take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the
document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the
document.

(b)
Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that
it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that
the document was delivered.

(c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document:

(1) states that it is not legal process; or

(2)
purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who
did not have lawful authority to issue or authorize the document.

(d)
If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the
simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a
clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a

court
created or established under the constitution or laws of this state,
there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was delivered with
the intent described by Subsection (a).

(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(f)
If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the
defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section,
the offense is a state jail felony.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, § 3, eff. May 21, 1997

b. Additionally, Request (#26) for authentication of Judge Mudricks' April 30th, 2014 "Decision", [7] was
answered by a record, titled "Decision", which is of the "post-it
decision" type, unsigned and unauthenticated, which was not registered
in the publicly accessible "Decisions Docket", and was never served on
the Requester. Its content is vague and ambiguous. [8]

c.
Furthermore, it is doubted that any judicial record can be duly
authenticated in the Tel-Aviv Distinct Court today, since the evidence
suggests that there is no duly appointed Magistrate or Chief Clerk of
the Court.

d.
It is likely that international observers would find Judge Mudrick's
conduct, outlined in instant Request, as credible evidence for the
conduct of Simulated Legal Process, relative to the Request to Inspect
in instant court file.

Judge Mudrick should duly review and adjudicate my Request to Inspect in instant court file, for the following reasons:

a. The 2009 Judgment in petition of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel et al v Minister of Justice et al
(HCJ 5917/97) says that the right to inspect court records is "a
fundamental principle of a democratic regime", and "a constitutional,
super-statutory right".

b. The right to inspect court records is among the fundamental Human Rights.

c. It is likely that international observers would find the denial of access to inspect the records in State of Israel v Pinto under the circumstances, outlined herein, a serious violation of Human Rights.

d.
Moreover, such conduct is likely to raise serious concern regarding the
competence of the Tel-Aviv District Court and integrity of the judicial
process in State of Israel v Pinto in particular, and other court files in general.

For
all the reasons, outlined above, I herein again request that Judge
Mudrick enter a decision regarding my Requests to Inspect instant court
file: a. Appearing on its face as a valid and effectual court record –
duly signed, authenticated and served, and b. Reasoned pursuant to the
law of the State of Israel.

In accordance with the fundamentals of law and justice, the Court should grant instant Request.

[6] 2015-05-17 State of Israel v Pinto
(43357-09-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – fax from unidentified
transmission, purported to be Judge Mudrick's May 14, 2015 Decision on
inspection of court file records //

[7] 2015-05-10 State of Israel v Pinto
(43357-09-14) in the Tel-Aviv District Court – Dr Zernik's Request
(#26) for a Signed and Authenticated Copy of April 30, 2015 Decision on
Request (#25) to Inspect Court File //

[8]
2015-05-12 State of Israel v Pinto (43357-09-14) in the Tel-Aviv
District Court – Judge Mudrick's "Decision" on Request (#26) for a
signed and certified copy of his April 30, 2015 Decision, in re:
Inspection of court file. //

"Decisions Docket" tab in State of Israel v Pinto (43357-09-14) - screen print of Net-HaMishpat public access system on May 17, 2015.

The "Decisions Docket" tab lists eleven (11) records.

The
May 12, 2015 Sentencing record does appear in the list, but not the
Verdict, which according to media was rendered on April 14, 2015, fails
to appear in the Decisions Docket. Also none of the four (4) records,
titled "Decision", pertaining to Dr Zernik's Requests to Inspect appears
in the Decisions Docket.

11-12-10 Where should Occupy go next? Civil Disobedience in the footsteps of Thoreau and Gandhi!http:// www.scribd.com/doc/75348301/12-06-08 Courts and Judges as racketeering enterprises under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) - key element in the current financial crisishttp://www.scribd.com/doc/96504009/Secede! The US in its current form is simply unmanageable...

What did the experts say?

* דוח סייג לזכויות האדם נכלל בדוח התקופתי של האו"ם לגבי זכויות האדם בישראל (2013), בלוויית ההערה: "חוסר יושרה בכתבים האלקטרוניים של בית המשפט העליון, בתי המשפט המחוזיים, ובתי הדין למוחזקי משמורת בישראל".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2010 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in the United States, with the note: "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".* The Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations was incorporated into the 2013 Periodic Review Report regarding Humnan Rights in Israel, with the note: "lack of integrity of the electronic records of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees courts in Israel."

The United States

* "...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* Los Angeles County is"the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud."FBI (2004)

* “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit."Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000)

* “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.”Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/239647129/The HRA submission was incorporated into the 2015 HRC Professional Staff Report on the United States with the note: :“HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.”

[2] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2013 UPR of the State of Israel was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Lack of integrity in the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, the district courts and the detainees' courts in Israel".

2012-06-04 Human Right Alert's Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel: Integrity, or lack thereof, of the

[3] Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission for the 2010 UPR of the United States was incorporated into the UN Human Rights Council Professional Staff Report with the note: "Corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."

2010-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the

2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report:

[1] 10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, where Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission was incorporated with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California."http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/http://www.scribd.com/doc/108663259/